Linux-Advocacy Digest #459, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: VA Linux cuts 25 per cent of staff, sees 212% increase in revenue (Rex Ballard)
Re: M$ doing it again! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: M$ doing it again! (Ray Chason)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: VA Linux cuts 25 per cent of staff, sees 212% increase in revenue
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:51:24 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> Hi Jan Johanson,
>
> <snip>
>
> > I mean - hell, say Linux makes some kind of surge in the server OS
> > business.
>
> OK. That's not a difficult scenario to imagine.
>
> > OK, no problem - next day; Windows XP Datacenter, $10 for CD duplication
> > and shipping/handling fees. Office XP Premium for $15. They'll sell a
> > jillion copies as people rush to come close to licensing compliance and
> > enjoy the good stuff for practially free.
Keep in mind that Datacenter edition, which currently allows an
unlimited number of
users to connect to a pair of redunant machines is selling for $20,000
per CPU.
That's nearly $160,000 for a pair of 4 processor servers.
> Quite a discount there Jan. So Microsoft stays a software superpower by
> distributing their software at duplication cost/handling fees (and thus at
> an overall loss because of other overheads)? Nice strategy there.
Something like this has happened before. In 1978, Microsoft offered a
reduced cost
version of Windows NT 4.0 at $49 per copy when students began snapping
up Red Hat
Linux in quantities greater than Windows NT 4.0. In another move,
Corporate
customers were offered the opportunity to purchase a "dual release"
license for
both Windows NT 4.0 and NT 5.0 (Windows 2000) for roughly 1/2 the
original $400/copy
retail price. Nearly 80% of the current licenses of Windows 2000
shipped since it's
release are actually "upgrades" which were "sold" in 1998 and 1999.
Ironically, many corporations had to be reminded that they were entitled
to
free upgrades and when corporations still hadn't accepted their
upgrades. Linux
had already killed the market for many of the servers. Many
corporations were
very reluctant to upgrade to Windows 2000 because there were so many
problems
with NT 4.0 including SP1 and SP2. In addition, many companies had
adopted LDAP
and Kerberos for their UNIX servers and Mainframes in anticipation of
Windows 2000.
When Windows 2000 was delivered with it's broken implementations that
radically deviated and could not be configured to adhere to the
standard, administrators and architects
were directing executives to avoid Windows 2000 like the plague.
Meanwhile, Linux has delivered reliability as a Server, and many of the
people
who support Linux have insisted on using Linux for their workstation.
In addition,
the UNIX support team and even the mainframe (OS/390) team have begun to
insist
on using Linux as their primary workstation. Many managers who still
cling to
Windows as their workstation have remarked at the arrogance of
candidates who
will refuse remarkable offers when told that they would have to run
Windows
on their workstations. Many Linux/UNIX professionals have even quit
lucrative
jobs because corporate executives ordered them to remove Linux from
their
workstations.
Linux/UNIX professionals have become so much in demand that they can
pretty
much set their terms. Many people are actually more concerned about
being
able to run Linux than they are about the location of their office or
Cubicle.
This isn't just a matter of big egos either. Those who have been Linux
and
UNIX professionals during the growth of the internet know that they an
run
Linux on a laptop or home computer and test entire systems from home.
They
can test all the functions of a server on a laptop or desktop and move
it
to a Linux server with minimal effort. They can usually migrate it to
Solaris,
AIX, or any of the BSD variants with minimal effort as well. They don't
need
to spend weekends and evenings at the office hacking at some shared
machine
that is only available to developers during off-hours.
There are numerous advantages to Linux on the desktop or laptop and
companies
are beginning to realized that they really want the folks who make these
requests.
> > So, what idiot CTO is going to walk into that board room and say: "Hey
> > guys, we can save $10 by using Linux instead of W2K!"
If all they can save is the $10, or even the $200 by installing Linux,
then
it's rediculous to assume the costs of installing Linux. The fact is
that
when you consider a corporate environment, you will have to pay
professionals
to perform the upgrades. If you've been using Windows NT machines with
the latest
versions of Office 2000 and IE 5.2 and all of the other IE features, and
you
are planning nothing but in-place upgrades, it doesn't make much sense
to
choose Linux. In the short run ...
In the long term view however, your real business problems involve a
much tighter
integration between UNIX systems which have been custom tailored to
optimize an
often competitive and highly regulated environment. Microsoft's
approach of
"one size fits all" with "biannual upgrades and semiannual service
packs" doesn't
cut it in the world where state and federal regulators require complance
with a number
of business practices that Microsoft simply doesn't offer. Banks have
to address issues of Money Laundering and inappropriate loans, at the
same time they have to honor
privacy and credit history confidentiality and reporting. Microsoft
actually went
so far as to sponsor a campaign to make the "Know your customer" laws
that have
governed banks since 1938 unpopular enough to have them waved in
information systems
such as the internet.
Microsoft didn't want to deal with the complexity of tax collection and
campaigned to effectively evade sales taxes in a tax moratorium. Today,
with nearly $1 trillion
at stake in U.S. domestic transactions, and nearly $70 billion in tax
revenue being
completely drained from state treasuries, Microsoft is finding itself
facing a much
more complex server environment which much comply with state and federal
regulations.
Microsoft has managed to gain some strategic server placements such as
web servers
which function as "Front-ends" for SQL Server 2000 databases that serve
as result set
caches for the federally regulated databases. Some classic examples are
the NASDAQ
public internet quotes server. Microsoft simply caches "select into
temptable" queries
and delivers the delayed quotes a short time later. It's actually a
trivial application,
but it creates the illusion that Microsoft is directly responsible for
NASDAQ trading
systems. Those systems are still driven by UNIX systems. Even the
small branch brokerages still use SCO UNIX, and are likely to be
converted to SCO/Caldera Linux.
In many cases, the actual mission critical servers are the classic MVS
mainframe
technology, which has been more tightly integrated into UNIX systems
such as AIX,
Solaris, and Linux.
The key here is that you aren't dealing with a trivial upgrade. Windows
2000 needs
much more powerful workstations, much larger hard drives, more memory,
faster CPUs,
and substantial back-up and recovery costs. Many companies have begun
to plan for
the next upgrade by putting "user" directories in a dedicated
directory. Still,
the cost of lost work do to ineffective backup that fails to recover
files that
end up in System32 and "Program Files" can raise the stakes
significantly.
For corporations who configured Windows NT on 100-200 mhz desktops with
32 meg of
RAM and 1 gig hard drives must be replaced. Even then, the desktops
being removed
must be discarded in a manner approved by the EPA. Rather than simply
discard
these machines, they can be given to Linux users. For the people who
have been using
Windows 95 in the office, Linux can run with Win4Lin. Many applications
now run under
WINE. Many 3rd party applications have been developed to work for WINE
as well.
If you are buying a Windows system configured for Windows 2000, you can
run Linux
as well under VMWare. Many corporations are simply refusing to accept
terms that
force them to implement single partition configurations (since having
separate partitions for user data makes it easier to "reengineer" a
failed Windows system without losing
precious user data.
Microsoft has tried to convince corporate users that it would be a good
idea to
put their most sensitive and mission critical and confidential
information on
Microsoft servers. There are those who will be foolish enough to do
this. Microsoft
has a terrible track record when it comes to protecting the intellectual
property
rights and competitive secrets of it's customers. The most dramatic
example was
the way Microsoft used corporate data on traffic flowing between MSN
users and
3rd party sights as well as data used in Verisign agreements to identify
the
highest revenue markets on the Web, and immediately proceeded to either
move into
those markets directly, or set up "puppet companies" that could insulate
Microsoft
from federal regulatory requirements.
> > - hahaha - you
> > know, that's about as silly as when a CTO for a multibillion dollar
> > company with a $50 million dollar a year IT budget says,
> > "Say, we can save $10,000 by using linux instead of W2K Server"
Which is almost as silly as when the CTO suggests that the company
should
use Windows 2000 instead of Solaris or Linux because they will save
$25,000,
according to a TCO report which Microsoft still publishes in it's "Fast
Facts"
information kit. Many CTOs have been much more reluctant to reccomend
Windows 2000
for mission critical systems. Windows 2000 is 3 times more reliable
than Windows
but still nowhere near as reliable as Linux 2.2.13 kernel let alone
FreeBSD, Solaris,
or Linux 2.4 kernel. Even today, when project managers propose Windows
for a "trivial"
application, Linux is often counteroffered and accepted because it's
easier to scale
or transition from Linux to UNIX. Many managers are so impressed with
how well
Linux performs that prototype systems and trivial applications are often
left on
Linux as the system goes into production and scales to thousands of
users.
> You're the one who made up the scenario Jan.
It also indicates that Jan has never actually had to sit in the CTO
seat. The
CIO is responsible for making sure that all production systems work
correctly
and that all information is always available to the people who need it,
when they
need it. The Chief Technology Officer is accountable for making sure
that the
new systems coming on-line don't create a problem for the CIO. In fact,
the
CTO position was created so that the CIO didn't lose his job if an
NT/Win2K
server project "hit the ditch" and couldn't be made production capable.
Most
CTOs figured out very quickly that putting Windows into a mission
critical
server was the equivalent of corporate suicide. Even today, executives
look
for a "Fall Guy" who will take the blame when any of the Windows 2000
projects
go over budget, run late to delivery, or just fail in production. It's
a bit
like being the king's taster. For as long as the food is safe, you get
to eat
like a king. The first time the food is poisoned, you're dead.
> > (ignoring for the moment the user rebellion and the TCO nightmare of
> > hiring hippies).
If you want to talk about TCO nightmares, take a look at Windows NT.
Here is
a product for which numerous projects were bid based on the estimating
techniques
used for UNIX and Linux projects. The projects ended up running 500%
late and
800% over budget and nearly 1/3 had to be scuttled completly and never
made it
to production. When corporate managers decided to "hedge their bets" by
hiring
consultants who were supposedly working on a "fixed price" basis, the
project
planners, now called Architects, would estimate how long it would take
to implement
the project on UNIX, multiply that figure by 10 and then quote the
estimate.
Many Architects actually began using at technique called "days into
months, weeks into years" estimating process. They would actually
implement a working model on a personal
Linux system using all Open Source products and see how long it took.
If it took
3 days to implement the project on Linux (working implementation), then
it would take
3 months to impliment the same thing on Windows NT or Windows 2000. If
it took 1 week
to implement a project under Linux, it would take 1 year to implement it
under Windows.
The estimating method worked so well that many still use it as a
standard estimating
practice. What's great about this of course is that you can use the
Linux version as
a "Demo" when management wants to see something that is actually
working.
Many consulting firms also became masters at the Scope Change notice.
They crafted
carefully worded contracts that allowed almost any contingincy to be
treated as
grounds for a scope change notice. An NT server that failed could ad 3
months
to a 6 month contract. An NT Workstation that failed could add 3 weeks.
An even more dramatic contrast of TCO realities was the prices quoted
for cohosting
web servers. The Linux systems started with much simpler hardware which
wasn't even
offered for Windows. The Windows systems were priced at nearly 3 times
the price
on nearly identical equipment (since there were known to be more
failures), and the
prices quoted explicitly stated that the user was responsible for all
CALS, license fees, and service issues directly related to Microsoft.
Microsoft did eventually offer an unlimited user version of Windows
2000, that runs nearly $10,000 for just the license fees. That's the
price on a "Per CPU" basis for Enterprise edition.
And when you finally get the system ready for production. The Windows
NT/2000 systems typically need dedicated servers for each application.
The Linux, BSD, and commercial UNIX servers can often be used for
multiple applications. Furthermare, because Linux
and UNIX don't have deliberate security holes and "back doors" (used by
to audit
software licenses and for market research), the systems tend to be more
reliable and
mare secure.
For example, many companies use a single UNIX or Linux server for DNS,
Routing, web server, and e-mail. Typically, the internal systems are
separated from the external
by adding secure firewalls.
> What a disparaging remark.
It's actually somewhat justified. Many consulting companies have
"Faces", people
who where suits and ties and go to customer sites to gather requirements
and get
the details. These faces then come back to some of the most diverse
huminity on
earth who actually implement the project. In Linux, it's quite easy for
a team to develop the entire project without ever going to the customer
site.
The "face" will be there as a regular on-sight consultant, but the "real
work"
is done by people of all types. You have Indians, Asians, African
Americans,
Hispanics, and Eastern Europeans, some firms actually extend the
work-day
by utilizing people in India, Australia, Eastern Europe, and Asia to
literally
work 24 hours a day.
Many of the early Web programmers and Linux developers were "hippies",
"punkers",
"rappers", "gangstas", "cow-huggers", and "street people". In fact, one
of the
hottest Web development centers was the "Squats" of New York's "Alphabet
City".
When I went to Alphabet City back in 1993, it was a very run-down and
depressing
place. The squats were abandoned buildings that had been condemned and
seized
for nonpayment of taxes. Hundreds of artists lived in the squats,
trying to
paint
> > Whenever I hear ANYONE talk about "Linux, cause it's free (as in free
> > beer)" I have to laugh because that comment makes it PEFECTLY clear to
> > me what type of person I'm talking to - it's a basement computer hack.
It tells me that you are talking about someone who doesn't really
undestand
"free software". Yes, there are many kids who pass around Linux CD-ROMS
and install software on dozens of computers. There are even corporate
users
who might install multiple servers from a single CD-ROM. On the other
hand,
many of these customers then turn around and pay for licenses because
they
want support and upgrades. Many simply register and pay the money over
the web.
There are many products included on the Mandrake and SuSE which are
actually
"for-fee" but users simply pay via the web (VMWare). Others provide a
simplified
version in the standard distribution and then offer enhanced commercial
versions via the web (Partition Magic).
> <snip>
>
> Actually that's free software, as in _freedom_, not free beer. That's the
> whole point.
Unfortunately, there are elements of both, even today. Even though
Linux
is still offered as a commercial product, the "standard distribution"
can
be legally copied. The problem that comes up is when you need support.
If
you copied someone elses CD, and then you have a configuration problem,
you
now have to make a phone call. When you make the call, they will ask
you for
a name, address, telephone number, and a product serial number. If the
name,
address, and/or telephone number don't match a prior registered serial
number,
they will offer you a licence at the standard rate for that product.
> You might also want to consider calculating costs as a discounted sum of
> lifetime licensing costs.
TCO costs include a number of factors. These include license costs,
application
costs, development costs for custom applications or configurations, cost
of staffing
to run routine maintainance, cost of staffing for crash recovery, and
cost of additional
software. Linux typically takes the prize in all catagories except one
and that is
the time spent training desktop users. Since there are more
capabilities, it could
take longer to train someone in all of these capabilities.
> If Microsoft is able to achieve vendor lock-in
> by giving away software at a single point in time while aiming to charge
> high fees for any bug fixes/upgrades then the discounted cost of licensing
> software from that vendor over the lifetime of the company will be little
> different (unless you propose that Microsoft makes a pledge to sell its
> software at cost indefinitely?)
Ask the OEMs about this, especially IBM. It took a trial in federal
court
to even get OEMs to admit that Linux was available on their products.
Furthermore, you still couldn't order a Linux configuration over the
standard Web site or the standard telephone line. Linux is now publicly
available for servers, but you still have a hard time going to a web
site
or a retail store and getting a desktop or laptop configured for Linux.
The few companies that do sell desktops or laptops with Linux
preinstalled
charge a little more and seem to be doing well, with rapid growth in
revenue,
but there is always the possibility that the "Big 8" will start offering
personal Linux systems the minute they can be sure that the DOJ will
prevent
Microsoft from punishing them. It's very likely that even though the
courts
might be willing to make the break-up of Microsoft contingent, like a
consequence of violating the spirit or intent of the behavioral
remedies.
The problem with only the behavioral remedies is that Microsoft has
ignored
all previous settlements and court orders, including the orders of Judge
Jackson.
It took 19 Attorneys General to prosecute Microsoft and to get the
judgements.
Microsoft has enjoyed the benefits of a stay that they have abused in
every
possible way. They've not only ignored the judgement as much as
possible, but
have become even more flagrant with their announcements of .NET, XP, and
other attempts to lock-in their Monopoly and extend it to Banking,
Securities,
Insurance, and Employment. If Gates had his way, we'd be paid in "Billy
Bucks"
which will be redeemable when Whistler comes out.
> Regards,
> Adam
--
Rex Ballard
Information Technology Architect
Open Systems/Open Source Advocate
http://www.open4success.com
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:52:57 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Uhh. how does someone "reverse engineer" something that has source code
> freely available?
We're just finishing doing just that (reverse engineering) code that
we ourselves wrote. Had to, because, although it's "all in the code",
the amount of code we had was a bit large, and, furthermore, written
by more than one person. It took some time to draw the engineering
diagrams by looking at the code. As a result, we all understand our
own code much better, even though we managed to "grow the code"
to where it ran pretty well.
> NCSA licensed the mosaic source code to Spyglass, and Spyglass was legally
> able to relicense that code. Just because code can be dual licensed doesn't
> mean that the code must always conform to both licenses at the same time.
>
> Trolltech's QT for instance is both licensed under the GPL and under their
> proprietray license. That doesn't mean if I purachase a proprietary license
> from them that I have to also follow the GPL.
I agree with Eric here.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:56:49 -0000
Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The richest man in the world, and what was once the largest largest
>company in the world (in terms of market cap)
>were on trial and convicted of multple crimes. During the trial,
>Microsoft executives repeatedly confessed to
>federal felonies in front of a federal Judge while justifying the acts
>as necessary.
Look, I'm no friend of Microsoft, but this statement is misleading.
The words "convicted" and "felonies" create the impression that
Microsoft faced a criminal trial, which the antitrust case was not.
The antitrust case was a civil lawsuit.
No Microsoft executives are going to jail. Yeah, I know, more's the
pity.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
